Jeb Bush: Actually, I could support a path to citizenship in theory

posted at 10:41 am on March 5, 2013 by Allahpundit

WaPo’s selling this as a semi-reversal of yesterday’s full reversal on citizenship for illegals, but I’m not sure that’s true. Watch the clip below (via Think Progress). He’s not saying that he’s suddenly changed his mind and now prefers citizenship to permanent residency. He’s saying that, hypothetically, if you could grant citizenship without creating a huge incentive for more people to cross the border, he’d be okay with that. Since there’s no way to do that, though, he’s sticking with the permanent residency option.

But wait. Here’s what he said yesterday on the subject of citizenship:

“Half the people who could have gotten amnesty in 1986 didn’t apply,” Bush said, referring to an immigration bill signed by President Ronald Reagan. “Many people don’t want to be citizens of our country. They want to come here, they want to work hard, they want to provide for the families, some of them want to come home, not necessarily all of them want to stay as citizens. That’s point number one. Point number two, there has to be some difference between people who come here legally and illegally. It’s just a matter of common sense and a matter of the rule of law. If we’re not going to apply the law fairly and consistently, then we’re going to have another wave of illegal immigrants coming into the country.”

He’s right about that. Citizenship is key to comprehensive reform not because it’s something illegals necessarily want but because it’s something Democrats want for them. But if citizenship isn’t a top priority for people crossing the border, why worry that creating a path to it will act as a “magnet” for them? It’s legalization that’s a magnet, not citizenship, because legalization ensures that illegals who are here can stay and continue to work. And both Bush’s permanent residency plan and Rubio’s Senate bill (on day one!) guarantee legalization. Mark Krikorian made a similar point this morning in arguing that Bush’s half-a-loaf residency plan is not only a red herring but one which will achieve less for the GOP politically than Rubio’s more forthright amnesty:

Once the illegal population is legalized, the game is over — the amnesty will obviously never be revoked, and the Democrats will then launch a campaign against Republicans accusing them (correctly) of imposing on helpless Latinos a Jim Crow-style system of second-class status, something more appropriate to Saudi Arabia. If they go this way, the GOP candidate in 2016 will look back fondly on Romney’s 27 percent of the Hispanic vote — and he’ll have sabotaged his own base as well, resulting in an even further drop in blue-collar white turnout and Republican share.

Another thing. Bush writes in his book in arguing against citizenship, “It is absolutely vital to the integrity of our immigration system that actions have consequences.” Okay, but in that case why would you even hypothetically support a path to citizenship? Even if one could be devised that satisfied Bush’s concerns about acting as a “magnet” for illegals, shouldn’t he still oppose the path on grounds that “actions have consequences”? As Byron York says, he’s making two different arguments here, one from pragmatism and one from principle. Yesterday he seemed to oppose the path on principle, as an improper reward for lawbreaking irrespective of the “magnet” effect. Today he’s all about the magnet, lawbreaking or no.

Hold on, though. Turns out the citizenship rhetoric isn’t even the most controversial part of Bush’s plan. Quote:

But the former governor also stakes out a position far to the left of those voters on border security that would only complicate a potential presidential bid. In the book titled Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution, Bush is skeptical of the demand from many conservative Republicans – including Rubio – that illegal immigrants cannot seek legal residency until the border is secure. In fact, Bush echoes President Obama by pointing out that the border security is tighter than ever.

“Demanding border security as a prerequisite to broader immigration reform is a good slogan but elusive on the details and measurements,” the book says. “What exactly is the magic moment we must wait for before we can fix the broken immigration system?”

So Bush isn’t pounding the table, as Rubio is, for considerably stronger border enforcement before we start legalizing people? Why on earth would a guy who’s worried about a “magnet” effect from the new amnesty be sanguine about that? If anyone should be a stickler for tighter border control, it’s someone who worries about “waves” of new illegals being induced to cross over once a more forgiving immigration policy is enacted.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Can we just pay him to go away? I mean what amount of money would it take for him to just, go away.

If I never hear from another Bush it will be too soon.

Gatsu on March 5, 2013 at 10:42 AM

I’m not sure what financial angle the Bush family is after. However, I’m certain that Rubio would have been more than willing to look after his mentor’s financial interests before this little flare up. Now, I’m not so certain.

Actually, just go away. The Feral-American community isn’t going to vote for you. Those of us who saw trouble building with every new welfare program created by your brother aren’t going to vote for you. There’s only so many crony capitalists left, as a possible voting base.

Once someone has spit on American sovereignty and been here illegally the fair and sensible result is that he can NEVER come back again, let alone even think of ever becoming a citizen. Never, ever, ever.

I guess I’m confused on this. I always thought there WAS a path to citizenship. How else did all the people who were born in Mexico and who are now citizens of the Unitend States Of America get to be such? When did this path to citizenship cease to exist. Did I miss something important?

No more Bush. Should we legislate it, or perhaps amend the Constitution to say so explicitly? I’m sure no Democrat who wants to keep his or her seat (and the backside in it) safe will vote against it. I’m sure we could get quite a few sane Republicans support that, too.

I guess I’m confused on this. I always thought there WAS a path to citizenship. How else did all the people who were born in Mexico and who are now citizens of the Unitend States Of America get to be such? When did this path to citizenship cease to exist. Did I miss something important?

MikeA on March 5, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Exactly! Illegals don’t want a “path to citizenship”. They want a shortcut to citizenship because they’re lazy, entitled idiots!

I think it’s unquestionably going to be one of these two, though I’ve started leaning in Rubio’s direction. Depends on whether the split between him and Jeb is real or whether it’s kabuki theater. Christie would have had a shot if he hadn’t backstabbed Romney so blatantly.

The standoff on immigration reform is horrible. They keep pouring over our borders uninhibited because, for now, this is a better place.

I saw Jeb on Hannity last night. Hannity was calling for securing the borders as an absolute prerequisite to any path to citizen ship. The segment made me realize why that is folly.

Until we make it easier to work here legally, there is no efficient way to shut down the border. Whatever we do, it will still be attractive to illegals to find a workaround, coming by boat or plane or tunnel. Yes, we can make it harder, but at what cost? Conservatives say they are for reducing expenditures, so we should think about a cost effective solution.

It hit me: Making meaningful and reasonable changes to our path to either citizenship or at least a work permit will reduce the demand for illegal entry. If fewer folks are flocking in illegally, it should be less expensive to stop those that are. And when you increase the barriers to illegal entry after the legal entry bar has been adjusted, even more will choose the legal route.

The law of diminishing returns applies. The higher the percentage of illegals our system blocks, the greater the cost. At some point, the next percentage point costs double the last one and the economic inefficiency is so apparent that even a democrat could see it.

Until we make it easier to work here legally, there is no efficient way to shut down the border.

EconomicNeocon on March 5, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Which is why there’s something called “interior enforcement” which is the only truly important aspect of defending our sovereignty. Illegals need to be denied all services and deported the minute they are found, never to be allowed back here and never to be eligible for a tourist visa, let alone residency or citizenship.

Without interior enforcement this is all just a big, stupid joke. And being able to work here legally has nothing to do with it. People need to respect our nation, no matter what laws we decide. We own this country, not the world. Our Constitution was written to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity” not to aliens who all have their own nations.

Is the GOP really considering clearing the way through the primaries for THIS guy in 2016???

That would be no surprise.

Exactly! Illegals don’t want a “path to citizenship”. They want a shortcut to citizenship because they’re lazy, entitled idiots!

And the shortcut is encouraged and supported by dems, drooling over a broadened voter base (with undying loyalty for being granted citizenship, legal access to jobs, an array of legal government benefits, and the opportunity to sponsor the immigration of more relatives), and unions drooling over potential new members anticipating increased union dues and even greater political influence.

It seems like based on the National Journal story that the Jeb Bush book was supposed to open a conversation on immigration and push the Republicans gradually to his way of thinking (pro-amnesty.) I’m assuming that he thought that Marco Rubio was going to defer to him in 2016 and be his little puppy dog (following his lead on immigration) with hopes of getting to run for President with Jeb’s blessing in 2024. Jeb didn’t realize that Rubio was no longer under his control like he was in 2010 and was an ambitious national figure.

So Rubio jumped ahead of Bush and got key allies on board before the book came out. Rubio wants to be the face of immigration reform – not Obama or Bush – and he is savvy enough to get the coverage he wants. As a result, Rubio is the brave reformer and Bush is the crass politician. You really must admire the brazeness of all this and the fact that the Savior really can play hardball politics without getting his hands dirty.

Mark Krikorian made a similar point this morning in arguing that Bush’s half-a-loaf residency plan is not only a red herring but one which will achieve less for the GOP politically than Rubio’s more forthright amnesty:

Neither of which are going to actually achieve anything of consequence for the GOP, but will be greatly appreciated by the DNC.

For some reason, the GOP is clearly suffering from a death wish, and doing everything they can think of to carry it out – from pissing off their previously reliable base, to adding as many new reliable lib voters as possible to the Dem base.

It hit me: Making meaningful and reasonable changes to our path to either citizenship or at least a work permit will reduce the demand for illegal entry. If fewer folks are flocking in illegally, it should be less expensive to stop those that are. And when you increase the barriers to illegal entry after the legal entry bar has been adjusted, even more will choose the legal route.

The law of diminishing returns applies. The higher the percentage of illegals our system blocks, the greater the cost. At some point, the next percentage point costs double the last one and the economic inefficiency is so apparent that even a democrat could see it.

EconomicNeocon on March 5, 2013 at 11:11 AM

1. No. Making a path to citizenship encourages them pouring over the border. Simply make a 1 million dollar fine for every illegal hired and illegals taking jobs from citizens ends tomorrow.

2. To get welfare benefits any citizen who is not blind or crippled picks vegetables or they don’t get a check.

3. No more B1 visas. We have plenty of enginners, tech companies hire Moostaffa because he may make more mistakes, but he gets paid 30,000 in stead of 60,000.

4. Military forces practice training and capture on the border.

5. No public services for illegals, NONE. It’s not the Bureaucrats money, it is the money of the people who pay taxes.

“Many people don’t want to be citizens of our country. They want to come here, they want to work hard, they want to provide for the families, some of them want to come home, not necessarily all of them want to stay as citizens.

Lets just ignore the very large percentage of a highly ethnocentric people who have come here to claim land they believe is theirs to take. And its that refusal to acknowledge which helps create this highly fertile environment.

Hey Jeb Bush… go away. I will not vote for you and neither will most Americans because of your last name. We are 4 + years passed your brothers Presidency and the low information voters still blame him for almost all of today’s woes. If you run the Dems will win again and will continue the decline of our rights. It sucks to be you but STAY OUT OF IT!

Until we make it easier to work here legally, there is no efficient way to shut down the border. Whatever we do, it will still be attractive to illegals to find a workaround, coming by boat or plane or tunnel.

Which is why we make it painful, oh so very, very painful, to be an illegal immigrant, and make it very desperately disadvantageous to be here illegally, rather than the opposite, which is what we do today.

No benefits. None – no healthcare, education, nothing.

Incredily painful fines for employees, landlords, anyone who knowingly does business with illegals.

Deportation when they’re caught.

Imprisonment – for life – if they commit a crime.

Hey, in some countries if you’re caught illegally there, you’re shot. Or sent to prison for years. Here, we bend over to give them entitlements, a driver’s license, jobs, food, self-esteem, and damnitall some of us really really want to let them vote, too.

As a result, Rubio is the brave reformer and Bush is the crass politician.

Illinidiva on March 5, 2013 at 11:21 AM

They’re both treasonous nitwits who would have to find illegals to vote for them in my stead because I will sit out rather than cast a vote for any of these turds. Enough is enough.

The GOP very nearly completed their political suicide attempt with the treasonous shamnesty drive in 2006-2008 and now they are returning to try again. This time they will be successful. There will be no Tea Party saving them from themselves – not after they assaulted the Tea Party for every minute after the 2010 elections. Friggin idiots and traitors.

It hit me: Making meaningful and reasonable changes to our path to either citizenship or at least a work permit will reduce the demand for illegal entry. If fewer folks are flocking in illegally, it should be less expensive to stop those that are. And when you increase the barriers to illegal entry after the legal entry bar has been adjusted, even more will choose the legal route.

The law of diminishing returns applies. The higher the percentage of illegals our system blocks, the greater the cost. At some point, the next percentage point costs double the last one and the economic inefficiency is so apparent that even a democrat could see it.

EconomicNeocon on March 5, 2013 at 11:11 AM

1. No. Making a path to citizenship encourages them pouring over the border. Simply make a 1 million dollar fine for every illegal hired and illegals taking jobs from citizens ends tomorrow.

2. To get welfare benefits any citizen who is not blind or crippled picks vegetables or they don’t get a check.

3. No more B1 visas. We have plenty of enginners, tech companies hire Moostaffa because he may make more mistakes, but he gets paid 30,000 in stead of 60,000.

4. Military forces practice training and capture on the border.

5. No public services for illegals, NONE. It’s not the Bureaucrats money, it is the money of the people who pay taxes.

Bulletchaser on March 5, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Texas has had to go to court repeatedly over that. The state shut off utilities to the colonias….and then the LULAC Lawyers show up.

You really must admire the brazeness of all this and the fact that the Savior really can play hardball politics without getting his hands dirty.

Illinidiva on March 5, 2013 at 11:21 AM

LOL. To think that “the Savior” is going to play “hardball politics” with a GOPe that is going to be his life-support is delusional. If anything it’s a good cop=bad cop routine. Jeb and Rubio are both cut from the same cloth.

Consider the morbid equation: How many more disaffected base conservatives will not turn out in 2016? With the absence of Obama and the “drawing power” of his loathsomeness on the ticket, turnout will be further dampened. The ironbound RINO ethos, its true culture and attitude, is becoming increasingly exposed — even as it ruthlessly concentrates and exerts its power. Like a Communist country during the 1980s — tensions and forces going in different directions and each driven by an unalterable momentum. The RINO skill of blurring its differences with conservatives through money and lies is simply falling apart.

The two party elements are just not reconcilable anymore, certainly not with the party leaders or potential candidates we see today. A great, uniting figure could emerge, but as it is this party is collapsing.

Consider the morbid equation: How many more disaffected base conservatives will not turn out in 2016? With the absence of Obama and the “drawing power” of his loathsomeness on the ticket, turnout will be further dampened.

rrpjr on March 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Yep. The ONLY chance the GOP will have of winning any national election in the near future is to run a complete outsider. Since this is by definition impossible in today’s GOP, the Dems have a lock on the WH for a couple of generations.

I don’t trust either of them. Rubio is a snake and a puppet who will do/say whatever it takes to get ahead, politically speaking. And, Bush, well, we all know that story.

MustLoveBlogs on March 5, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Well.. Yes, I know that Rubio is looking out for Rubio. Since we’re going to be up against the two most notorious power grabbers of all time (aka the Clintons), I appreciate these talents.

LOL. To think that “the Savior” is going to play “hardball politics” with a GOPe that is going to be his life-support is delusional. If anything it’s a good cop=bad cop routine. Jeb and Rubio are both cut from the same cloth.

ddrintn on March 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM

No. They broke up. Jeb Bush would have helped Rubio’s immigration reform push by supporting it. Rubio say an opening and got out ahead of it.

Consider the morbid equation: How many more disaffected base conservatives will not turn out in 2016? With the absence of Obama and the “drawing power” of his loathsomeness on the ticket, turnout will be further dampened. The ironbound RINO ethos, its true culture and attitude, is becoming increasingly exposed — even as it ruthlessly concentrates and exerts its power. Like a Communist country during the 1980s — tensions and forces going in different directions and each driven by an unalterable momentum. The RINO skill of blurring its differences with conservatives through money and lies is simply falling apart.

The two party elements are just not reconcilable anymore, certainly not with the party leaders or potential candidates we see today. A great, uniting figure could emerge, but as it is this party is collapsing.

I find him, physically and in mannerism, the most obnoxious of the Bushes. Something proctorish, vaguely condescending about his presence and speech. Maybe because I went to prep school with too many over-achieving ass*oles who sounded like this. GWB never personally bothered me, seemed a genuine guy. I found the old man to be a complete non-entity, didn’t register at all. But that was a forgotten period of politics for me. Why couldn’t Reagan have picked Laxalt and spared us these endless iterations of entitled mediocrity?

Texas has had to go to court repeatedly over that. The state shut off utilities to the colonias….and then the LULAC Lawyers show up.

workingclass artist on March 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Then there need to be penalties for folks bringing frivilous lawsuits to support criminal illegal aliens as well, just like the penalties we need for employers and landlords and others that endeavor to aid the illegals in their lawbreaking. ‘Accomplice’ is the word, I think.

Why couldn’t Reagan have picked Laxalt and spared us these endless iterations of entitled mediocrity?

rrpjr on March 5, 2013 at 11:49 AM

I agree. Picking Bush as his running mate was the biggest mistake Reagan ever made. It guaranteed that the “grassroots revolution” Reagan sought to bring about would last only as long as his tenure as president. The GOP has been in the stranglehold of the GOPe ever since, and they are determined that there will never be another Reagan-type aberration. I think Selwyn Duke over at AT was right: the conservatives only hope in the future will be to work at the local and state levels, because there will never ever ever be a genuinely conservative GOP presidential nominee again.

No they didn’t. You think Rubio has any future in national politics if he’s an enemy of Bush Inc? LOL

ddrintn on March 5, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Umm… John McCain sure still had a future in politics while annoying the Bushes. Jeb Bush used Rubio to get back at Charlie Crist and that li’l experiment backfired on him. The Bushes aren’t all powerful. George Dubya is despised. I’m sorry but they aren’t supervillains. If they were, they’d have overthrown the national gov’t and installed themselves as kings already.

I guess I’m confused on this. I always thought there WAS a path to citizenship. How else did all the people who were born in Mexico and who are now citizens of the Unitend States Of America get to be such? When did this path to citizenship cease to exist. Did I miss something important?

MikeA on March 5, 2013 at 10:59 AM

There is currently almost no way for an unskilled immigrant without relatives in the U.S. to apply for permanent legal residence (green card). Only 10,000 green cards are allotted every year for the whole world, and the wait time approaches infinity. People who were born in Mexico and are now citizens either were sponsored by relatives who are citizens or became citizens in the Reagan “amnesty.”

With the downsizing of the armed forces, there may not be enough slots for native borns who wish to serve.

Actually, with this admin, immigrants, legal and/or illegal, may be preferable over native borns. The native borns might prove to be too squeamish about following any future orders to fire on citizens. Immigrants may not be so reluctant.

(The issue is some True Cons here live in an echo chamber and don’t realize that people disagree with them. Just because everyone at your church thinks like you doesn’t mean that this is the prevailing view.)

Umm… John McCain sure still had a future in politics while annoying the Bushes. Jeb Bush used Rubio to get back at Charlie Crist and that li’l experiment backfired on him. The Bushes aren’t all powerful. George Dubya is despised. I’m sorry but they aren’t supervillains. If they were, they’d have overthrown the national gov’t and installed themselves as kings already.

Illinidiva on March 5, 2013 at 12:08 PM

They’re supervillains.

They have family and allies in Texas, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida as well as longstanding business ties with the Northeast Establishment. Oh, and they have sycophants everywhere singing their praises from Joe Scarborough, Nicole Wallace, and on down to Dana Perino. No one wants to cross them save for those on the Left or who already left GOP politics.

Hell, even Romney had to go kiss Poppy’s ring. And surprisingly, Poppy and Jeb both met Obama last winter, I believe.

This might be a stretch, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Romney and McCain lost Ohio, Florida, and Virginia because of the Bush Network holding back to let Jeb run in ’16 — he did come out with a Hispandering book recently. But I also think you’re right in suggesting Rubio may have double-crossed them. We’ll see what happens. Worst case scenario, we get a Rubio/Bush ticket.

Texas has had to go to court repeatedly over that. The state shut off utilities to the colonias….and then the LULAC Lawyers show up.

workingclass artist on March 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Then there need to be penalties for folks bringing frivilous lawsuits to support criminal illegal aliens as well, just like the penalties we need for employers and landlords and others that endeavor to aid the illegals in their lawbreaking. ‘Accomplice’ is the word, I think.

Midas on March 5, 2013 at 11:50 AM

For decades California has mucked up immigration policy and the Federales side with California’s interpretation of law…

This has happened on Environmental policy…Education policy…Labor policy…Social issues and Immigration policy.

Both Coasts own the establishment media.

NY and CA are the policy makers that influence Washington DC and all the parties care about really.

Texas has gone to court repeatedly over these immigration issues…and we lost.

No one who entered the country illegally should be allowed to become a citizen at all; they deserve none of the rights of citizens, including voting and especially, bringing in other foreign nationals.

Rubio is a little boy playing on the Bush playground. He doesn’t have the savvy to carry this to the end. I’m not for Jeb Bush at all, but the Bushes will not let this little panderer (Rubio) knock their Jeb out of the way if he chooses to run in ’16.